[PATCH] clone: update to @ bookmark if it exists

Augie Fackler raf at durin42.com
Mon Oct 15 08:59:12 CDT 2012

On Oct 15, 2012, at 8:39 AM, Thomas Arendsen Hein <thomas at intevation.de> wrote:

> At first I thought "Good news", but I guess when cloning the crew
> repository the user would expect the crew bookmark to be checked
> out. Or should the bookmark "crew" be replaced by "@"? If you pull
> from crew you will get "@@crew" (or "@crew", see below).
> And the stable repositories (hg-stable, crew-stable) could have the
> @ bookmark to the tip of the stable branch while being identical to
> the default repos otherwise.

Hm, this actually sounds about right to me, or at least closer to right. The 'crew' bookmark[0] has felt like a band-aid - it doesn't really solve the problem of "knowing where changes came from" in an automatic way, as each source has to cooperate and add their own bookmark. Using the divergence markers on the @ bookmark might be the right thing. Perhaps this implies a mode where 'hg pull' never advances the local bookmark? That is, when mpm would pull, he'd get a @@local and a @@crew, and then could see where @@local was even if it was an ancestor of @@crew. I know that's not quite what we'd originally thought, but it seems to me that might solve mpm's "where did things come from?" problems.

[0]: and the 'durin42' bookmark on my for-mom repo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/attachments/20121015/afb6d95f/attachment.html>

More information about the Mercurial-devel mailing list